One foggy morning in early April, on an ill-advised flight enroute to a grim, joyless and historically laden destination in Russia – an equally ill-advised and foolish decision was taken. That decision, along with the usual chaotic assortment of parameters led to the crash of the presidential airplane. As the plane struck the treetops, and seconds later, the ground – all onboard were killed. The fact quickly made media cover stories all over the world. As condoleances from across the planet steadily drifted into Poland, the country itself seemed to grind to a complete halt. For brief hours, the world indeed seemed to hold its breath as possible causes and victims were debated. Within the span of mere  days however, the world – being the world – quickly forgot the whole ordeal. After all, even in our overexposed, near-global society, nothing is news for long. With about the same speed as the incident lost media coverage across the globe, it gained momentum in Poland.

And to be fair, its understandable. To some extent, at least. A significant number of country officials and government highbrows managed to squeeze their inflated personalities into the same, Russian-made airborne deathtrap, Tupolev. As the Poles rushed to commemorate the grim Katyn-anniversary all caution had been abandoned. Never mind being uninvited and late for the official ceremony (said deceased president not being a great protege of the Russian government that hosted the event).

For any company, anywhere in the world, putting all of its executives into one plane (and of ill-reputed, Russian produce) is unthinkable. Obviously, putting most of the proverbial eggs in the proverbial basket – is not of proverb status in Poland (or didn’t use to be, at least). So, the Poles were faced with the tricky, but far from impossible task of replacing said deceased officials. In time that would happen. Even the Poles seem to have contingency plans for these kinds of crises. But it wouldn’t happen before blooming out into a full-blown, tragic, nationwide spectacle of irrationality.

Personal drama, random, altruistic, kindness toward strangers and grieving families aside: We’re talking about politicians. Historically – hardly an irreplacable lot. In fact, they quite often display a rather interesting Medusa-like quality, at least speaking in terms of survivability. And while certainly a tragedy on a personal level, this was hardly a loss of any thoughtful, intellectual elite (the word “elite”, being unfortunately heavily overused immediately following the crash). Not in the grand scheme of things. These were not the scientists, artists and thinkers that would save us all.

But I digress. Because who the passengers of that unlucky flight actually were is of absolutely no consequence. In any way. They could have been important, they could have been just a bunch of right-wing follies and friends of said follies that for all intents and purposes probably wouldn’t have had (politically) survived the upcoming re-election anyway. No, the nature of the problem is the intepretation that the Poles almost collectively pinned to the event. With that nationwide, disgusting habit of theirs, they immediately forgot all about rationality and attributed the accident to God’s work (or the Russians, but even the most paranoid of Poles soon discarded the idea, thankfully) – and to whatever arcane reason said God might have had. Never mind the fact that some prominent personalities of course saw the accident as a way to immortalise, nay, canonise, a mediocre, daft, impopular president. No, The Poles chose not to see the accident for what it actually is, and for what all accidents to some extent are: a case of bad luck. That, and the fact that few things, if any, had been done to stack the odds in favour of that ominous flight.

Statements made in the press by guests of the president that for some reasons couldn’t attend the ceremony, thus escaping the accident were ridiculous, not to mention outright ignorant of their own faith: “I’m guessing God had other plans for me”, said one. “I escaped the ordeal through the providence of God”, said another. Amazing, in truth. And what an affront to all of those, and families of those to whom this providence of God obviously did not extend. Now, that’s the Catholic spirit for you: “Hooray, I live, praise God, never mind that all of my brethren are dead!”. Do the Poles really not see the existentialist nightmare brewing in statements as those?

Or perhaps, might it be so that as humans, we wish to keep our views of things unaltered, unchallenged and rather than accepting facts that would make us change our view of ourselves and the outside world, we simply tune events to become what we wish them to be. And how can a whole country succumb to this sort of magical thinking?

Einstein once said that: “God does not play dice”, but that was said as an outside defence to the mounting evidence that not only does God play dice, there are irrefutable facts pointing to the fact that the dice might be the actual God. And that any intelligent design, fate, and the existence of a human, sentient race is a very minor, very interesting circumstance – amounting to nothing but luck. A shot in the dark with ongoing results, the riddle of which has baffled the world of physics for close to fifty years, ever since the human race arrived at a place where we had the actual means and knowledge to pose the question: Are we – or are we not the product of an intelligent, sentient, design (God)? Obviously, there are things we do not yet know. But we understand the universe. And we understand that it all comes down to quantum decisions, made deep inside the atoms. Not an outside God. Still, the Poles hang on to their metaphysical crutch.

To my mind, few things are worse than hanging onto dead concepts. To pray to Gods, long ago departed – who’s ears are no longer here, but who’s judgment certainly still lingers on, causing irrationality: the murky, cumbersone waters where religion breeds.

Meanwhile the current Polish, mediafuelled hysteria has reached such epic proportions that any number of foolish scenarios have become possible, doing away with the most apparent benefit of the accident: the creation of a space where new ideas and new opportunites can take hold.

And its a shame, really. Instead of intepreting things that are best left uninterpreted (no, there is no need for humans to understand tragedies – save one thing and one thing only – they happen. Frequently), the Poles could try a different approach. If, and everything seems to point that way, we’re here by an near-incredible stroke of luck, that also means that we are indeed free to try and win, or lose, at the gigantic roulette of life. You hold the cards and there is no clandestine, opaque plan for you, manipulated by some deaf, galaxy-wielding, borderline retarded God. You’re in control. And you’re responsible.

This fact alone seems to scare people into any submission available to them.

To the obvious benefit of a dominating part.

So.

Cui Bono?

EDIT: May 19th, 2010

Unfortunately, I feel obliged to add something to this piece.

Ever since the crash, the Polish authorities have been trying to lay the blame for the incident on the pilots. The official investigation as to what actually took place concludes  (hints rather) that they (the airmen) repeatedly ignored warnings from the Russian flight control centre. In so many words, it creates very convenient scapegoats. This in spite of the fact that Mr Kaczynski (or is it St. Kaczynski now?) has a troublesome record of interfering with flight regulations by way of enormous, inflated ego. In spite of the fact that he fired a previous pilot for following security procedure and not landing in a hot zone.

The Russians are doing the Poles an enormous favor in keeping the results from the flight recorder, or black box as it is also known, under wraps. Because what almost most likely happened was the fact that the Polish president once more intervened, forcing the pilot to land the plane in bad weather. This time, unlucky for all of those on board – the pilot did in fact yield to his request, with catastrophic result.

Ultimately, one shouldn’t judge the pilot even though in hindsight, he probably should have just told the willful leprechaun to sit down and get stuffed. But the leprechaun also being the president, he might have been fearful for his job. Especially since said leprechaun has a history of persecuting pilots that insist on following proper flight procedure.

In a way, I suppose blaming the pilot is necessary and has its own twisted logic: After having nothing short of canonised aforementioned leprechaun, I suppose that it would make a bad dent in his glorious halo should the world ever find out that he was an evil little, self-centred, prestige-hungry, thoughtless, imbecille bugger. The part of the world which was not privy to the fact already, that is.

For an outsider, it might be hard to understand the wide eyed Swedish, borderline morbid fascination with the more sickening aspects of European WWII and post WWII-issues. More literature of this kind receives accolades in Sweden than in almost any other country in Europe. Steve Sem-Sandberg’s praised account on the persecution of the Jewish population of Łódź and more notably so, the granting of the Nobel Prize in Literature to the mannerised and overly emotional Herta Müller are but two examples of the trend. None of them are particularly interesting in any novel, scientific or cultural way.

Why are Swedes so fascinated by accounts on the suffering of the Baltic States? And why now?

Could it be the latent guilt of not participating (openly) in WWII? Or is it the plain and simple fact that the nature of the Swedish soul, so succinctly captured by Bergman, has isolated them from the heartland of Europe and now, over fifty years later, they’ve finally mustered some infinitesimal strand of courage and opened the door to peer in what the country’s closest neighbors have been laboring with for decades? Guilt is certainly the most Swedish of emotions. Collective guilt is what they excel in. So, what better when things become too hard to bear on their own soil but to project it onto unsuspecting neighboring states?

It might be that the answer is laughably simple, as most answers regarding human behavior usually are. Simpler still than being about guilt: Swedes discover other countries by way of mouth and groin. What can be eaten (or screwed), can also be adopted and loved. The sheer number of Thai restaurants in the country closely follows the pattern of vacationing Swedes in Thailand (in excess of 350 000 Swedes make their way there each year – a staggering number considering a population total of just above 9 million inhabitants). Similarly, Swedes discovered Estonia because they could go there for a budget vacation, at convenient boat cruise length. And much like in the case of Thailand, for the cheap and moral-free sex (even so accepted as to being culturally parodied). Because after all, what you don’t soil in your own back yard, according to prevailing human morals, you don’t soil at all.

There is no inherent shame in this; it’s just how things work. Consider The Germans, and the incessant drive to dominate and invade things – whether financially or by force. The Americans share a similar enthusiasm, but for other reasons. The Swedes eat and screw their way through the world (which, incidentally, I personally consider a rather innocent, almost childish motive).

It is with no small amusement that one watches the present Swedish society marvel at the horrors of the Second World War, where almost all of Europe toiled and suffered – and then watch them take up a humanitarian and moral stand to it considering why they got interested in the facts to begin with. Now stories need to be told, social trials need to be played out in public and common guilt needs to be accepted by one and all. Amusement borders on tragedy however when prominent culture critics such as Mr. Eklund hail the mediocre, formulaic works of say, Oksanen – while almost entirely foregoing the vast body of work already written on the subject.

Why the insightful, hard to read (and hard to bear), difficult work of Aleksander Wat (the biographical novel, “My Century”, in particular) is never mentioned can only be a testament to the modern sloth where prerequisite knowledge is almost totally subjugated in favor of cheap emotion-ridden ready-to-feel literature. Say that of Oksanen.

Wat was there. In the middle of the internment camps, in the middle of communist Russia. He lived for it and he died from it. It is an affront to intelligence to have to bear the presence of postindustrial, gothrocking Lydia Lunch-lookalikes and the hacks who hail them. Say Mr. Eklund, to name but one – though he is nowhere near alone in his limitless, borderline moronic adoration for Oksanen.

Another factor in play might be the fact that Swedes, while well versed in their ancient, Viking heritage, are almost totally oblivious to their own contemporary history of the last 50-60 years. They live in a housing system they do not understand and complain about it incessantly (mention “Gunnar Sträng” to the common Swede and he will look at you dumbly). They live in an undeserved economy that was founded from the ground up via the Marshall Plan. Money routed to Sweden that was turned down by the Soviet Union. Funds that were supposed to re-build war-ravaged countries in Europe. Not miniscule, unnotable nations of an absolutely war-spared North! The economic aid that was destined for Poland and many of the Baltic States that Swedes now so openly, and laughably, lament – was used to build this very nation’s economy. Again, ask the man on the street and he will, once again, be oblivious to this fact.

It’s a bit late to cowardly dodge the war, steal the victim’s money and now, over fifty years post-fact start some sort of population-wide guilt campaign where they lovingly rediscover the horrible heritage of neighboring countries that they’ve blatantly ignored for an equally long term, if not for longer. And rediscovered it by way of sex-tourism, no less (although this point can be argued at length – I’ve certainly simplified things for the sake of argument). Pathetic, transparent and typically Nordic, behavior.

I shiver to think of the hug-to-death-sessions that might take place when most Swedes, and their cultural prophets, will discover the atrocities made in far less years than those fifty during the second world war. What of the bloody revolution in Poland in the beginning of the 1980’s? While that war-torn land was fighting it’s way out of communism – Sweden didn’t even cast a second glance (actually, some in fact did – but they go on uncheered and unacknowledged to this day). But boy, they were – like totally – there – for the celebrations when the Berlin wall actually fell. You’d think they pushed the damned thing down themselves. I suppose that in those days of freedom frenzy, no one noticed a couple of uninvited Swedish bystanders in the cheering crowd.

The rest of Europe has moved on since the war. There are new troubles and there are new areas to explore. The Swedes, historically at least, stand in the same muddy cesspool that most of their closest neighbors have left long ago. They keep sending one-eyed, crying explorers into the Baltic backwaters of Europe, or their confused senior relatives of Eastern Europe – without a rudimentary understanding of how, why, what, when. Anything that would anchor an understanding to their statements. Then they go on to write politically correct accounts of the historical suffering without the benefit of first-hand experience. Adding insult to injury, the cultural so called elite of this nation goes on to praise campy and stilted authors, such as say, Oksanen.

Here’s a tip. Europe doesn’t need your Swedish guilt or your naive, child-like investigations. Participate – for real, or get the hell out of dodge. In literature, or elsewhere.

So, for the purpose of readability in this brief article, I will refrain from quoting philosophers, prominent marketing professionals, media gurus, notable PR-people and postmodern academics whos views, theories and joint knowledge I could have deliberately inserted in whatever I am about to present in an effort to further my own opinion. I’ll simply not do it this time and you’re going to have to trust me in not doing so.

Setting the scene

Last week a tragedy occured in central Stockholm. A young boy of a mere thirteen years plunged to his own death while “touristing” in one of the cities many underground canals. He had payed a small amount to another boy who, acting as guide, took the former on a stroll through the forbidden (and forbidding) grounds. In the process something went wrong, the young boy slipped to his death and the older, the guide – simply took off, presumably fearful of facing the consequences (a lead motife it will turn out, as it were in this moral tale). He still hasn’t surfaced to this date and the police have little hope of him ever doing so. The dead boy was somehow found and hauled out of the deep drop. I’m not familiar with the exact details of the scene, but there you go. These are the irreputable facts.

Now – media, being media, quickly caught up with the story and it was indeed front page news for a couple of days. Bereft parents were interviewed while concerned city officials and other major players presented their views on the tragic situation – police waving the forbidding stick and the men in charge of security shaking their heads, calling urban exploration a global problem. You get the idea.

Though, what at first glance looked like a freak accident quickly found another avenue for investigation. The setting, a closed off underground canal of some sort, also happened to be a hotspot for the many Urban Explorers that, as a pasttime and passion – visit places just like this particular site. A swift, but not necessarily fair – connecting of the dots all but blamed the UE-movement for inspiring the boy to head off on this fatal adventure.

Somehow, the reporter covering the story for one the tabloids, presumably after some online research, found an internet forum, 28dagarsenare.se (a reflection and play on the name of the english UE-site, 28dayslater.co.uk), where one of the Swedish authorities on Urban Exploration presides as moderator. Jan Jörnmark has written a number of excellent and hugely entertaining books on the subject and is more or less associated with the phenomenon of UE in Sweden.

Furthermore, his view are held in high regard by both readers and probably a great many practitioners of Urban Exploration. Mr. Jörnmark was interviewed in connection to the event and gave off a concerned and very correct and admirably presented statement. Kudos to him.

Pre-emptive strike opportunity lost

In spite of my many other more urgent interests, I’ve always kept a keen, boyish in truth – I suppose, interest on Urban Exploration and, so naturally, this piece of news immediately caught my eye. I concluded that if Mr. Jörnmark was interviewed, chances are that the forum, mentioned in the article – was more or less being raided by media and public alike.

Being a part of the all-pervasive communications industry, its my day-to-day job to navigate my clients through the murky and dangerous waters of public affairs, media exposure and press management – on and more often then not, offline.

In short, and against better judgement, I decided to openly write down a few suggestions to the management of the forum on how to deal with the media. Simple things like arranging a decent FAQ on how to practice UE safely, pulling together a special page for the press with edited details regarding UE and its practitioners, including some useful facts; and the like. The basic stuff for making the job of understanding easy for hard-pressed journalists. While in no way claiming that my advice is a panaceum for all media ills, or even the one rightful path, I did honestly believe that I pitched in an effort to help the forum out of an ill-boding situation.

Because as far as casual advice goes, it is a fact of our overexposed society that there is no better place to hide than in plain view. If you want to disappear your colors have to blend in. You need to inform the press properly if you want them off your back – and you have to do this in a prearranged pattern that they’re likely to understand the contents of without pressing you further for what might not even be a story. This is not selling out and it is not an invasion in any way. Its an informational hygiene that you either adapt to, or stand the risk of misinterpretation. It is the way the game is played if the game is to be played successfully. A pre-emptive strike, as it were.

The response

Not surprisingly, reactions to my suggestions were rather on the negative side. Some members acknowledged the need to communicate with the media and at least partly concurred, but the response from the majority quickly depreciated into less eloquent and at times even unpleasant personal attacks on me (and not my case) followed by a torrent of denials dismissing the  necessity of communication.

A heated debated followed shorty after, with members adding input in the neighbourhood of: “we’re not responsible for the actions of others, all you need is common sense”, “how can we be blamed for something that happens outside of the forum”, “we’re not an official club, we don’t need a spokesperson”, “let’s turn off the Google indexing so that visitors won’t find us again”, “lets close the forum to the public”, “go f*ck yourself and wave your credentials elsewhere”, “lets forget the whole thing, it will blow over, stay calm”, “this isn’t a problem, we all know how media works”, etc.

In all fairness there were moderating voices but these quickly drowned in the deluge of members sticking their heads in the sand or worse, shooting them off in ignorance.

What then, can be learned from this – aside from acknowledging the fact that dishing out unsolicited public relations-advice on the net is not the best pasttime for communication professionals on extended lunchhour breaks?

I began to think through the turns my simple and straightforwardly put suggestion had sparked and found, what I believe to be nothing less than a subculture on the skids.

Dragging subcultures into the open

Urban Explorers, as a demographic, are an industrious, creative, charmingly rebellious – and usually; utterly irresponsible lot. Incidentally, much like any denizens of just about any internet forum out there. But perhaps in this case, even more dangerously so.

Urban exploring is by no means a new phenomena, and while it is not this articles place to examine it in any scienfic manner (moreover, I promised in the beginning that I would refrain from quoting outside sources) – it can be useful to know that sometime during the industrial age man found enough time to reflect on his past, and indeed, become nostalgic of it. Nostalgia, in its purest form – is a ridiculous, cloying and unworthy pasttime for thinking individuals. It is often worsened yet and preceded by its irrational little sister: sentimentalism – the cheapest of human emotions.

Curiosly, Urban Exploring has dubious roots in para-urban exploring – but without said sentimentalism. Romantics have since the dawn of time reveled in the reminiscing of old ages by means of visiting ruins and other man-made relics – more often than not, situated outside settlements.

It is not until fairly recently that UE has exploded onto the scene as the number of relics have grown exponentially. Abandoned factories, sanatariums, powerplants and other colorful, rusty remnants of a rampant globalisation have for years littered both urban and rural landscapes as the ever-advancing armies of trade and capital changed the parameters of survival faster than society could adapt to them.

Over the years – rusty, decaying buildings have attracted both the casual onlooker as well as the amateur photographer. But there have been those that were not satisfied with a perpetual look on the subject matter: Urban Explorers often probe these old sites and buildings for motives of their own. Why? Well – for one, the sheer joy of it. In this shrinking world where borders fall in onto themselves and any place is reachable (in some manner) with a few clicks, it is refreshing to find a place where few set their foot. A simpler explanation would be that humans like to explore. For joy and for discovery alone. Or perhaps for the sheer, rebellious hell of it. After all, any place with restriced access is as much a provocation to trespass as it is a deterrant against trespassing. Great many of these places are, in spite of often being locked into legal battles, owned by someone or something and not legal grounds for anyone save any (mostly absent) caretakers.

No matter the motive and the pattern of discovery – with the arrival of the internet, urban exploring changed in nature. From a solo, almost boyish adventure, on occasion accompanied by a camera – to a form of sport where the actual discovery goes hand in hand with the documentation of it. A not so unimportant factor in the game of UE-credibility is the attitude and relationship of the discoverer to the object that has been discovered. A “virgin” site, hitherto undiscovered (or at least, documented) is worth a lot more attention from the UE crowd than one that has been visited on numerous occasions. Most practitioners of UE would probably deny the fact if you asked them, but there you go, that’s the game of attitudes. Oft visited sites tend to decay inasmuch as they bear evidence of recent trespasses and their popularity vanes over the time on display.

In time, an entire self-fuelling subculture has spawned around these abandoned, fascinating and often mysterious sites. A subculture like any other, save for one small detail. The whole thing hinges on the fact that publicity, while coveted by our modern explorers – just as fast kills the cat. The more prominent the sites, the faster they drop in popularity.

There are other problems, one of which I’ve already mentioned. Trespassing on these sites is often forbidden by law. While seemingly a small crime, I wonder what sort of complicated stories Urban Explorers tell their insurance companies when they fall through floors in places they should not have been in, incapacitating themselves in the process. One mans personal tragedy becomes anothers financial risk. Or perhaps there are insurances to cover this?

And so we’ve involuntarily arrived at the third factor: safety. Safety, as one can imagine is troublesome at best in these circumstances.

From one aspect, what is dangerous is also interesting and so an intrinsic part of the game, but often the risk just cannot be calculated justly and while there are no official statistics (to my knowledge at least) as to how many of our spirited adventurers actually injure themselves in this cumbersome task of documenting the past – it would be a safe bet to say that it would be quite a few more than had they chosen to cast a glance for afar. Of those personally known to me, all have some sort of painful story to tell in that respect.

The young boy that plunged to his death a few days ago certainly underscores the dangers of urban exploration. Moreover, his death might point to the fact that Urban Exploration has grown itself past the point of the favoured pasttime of a daring few, to the joint responsibility of many. I shall try to explain why.

The fall of  Urban Exploration by way of ignorance

Urban Exploration has become all but an institution. Numerous websites, discussion groups, books, magazine features and all the media coverage your run-of-the-mill cult can carry, coupled with overexploitation of digital technology kills trends quicker than you can say URL. And that is certainly the case with UE. It is no longer an elite wink between a select club but something that is overinformationalised, categorised and pegged down to the last Googled, iPhoned coordinate.

UE needs the limelight so that the members can display their findings, but at the same time, that very same light kills the sport as it is not only based on exclusivity (partly because some of the acts are criminal) but also on exposure of the sites that have been visited and documented. Put simply, when you drag a this said subculture into the light, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

And a great deal of the responses I got when posting my advice on how to handle this unexpected limelight confirmed this. In fact, some of the responses were not only outrageous but even borderline juvenile. To debunk some of then: Stating that one bears no responsibility as group or individual for publishing information on a forum that could lead to the endangering of others is a blatant declaration of incapacity. Furthermore, referring to the “common sense” of a thirteen year old in the same sentence is a rather serious mistake, especially since it in this case lead to a young mans death. No adult can count on the “common sense” of a child. No one.

A note on the usage of the term “common sense” in debates. “Common sense” is not an indivisable, lucid term and it is only with some difficulty that a group of people can agree on what common sense actually means. While not claiming to have the absolute answer for this, I’ve noticed a sliding scale of the usage of said term in debates and in particular, online debates. Worse yet is the fact that whenever someone refers to “common sense” it is usually to cover up a rather muddy agenda, as if waving the wand of “common sense” would explain and do away with any unpleasant arguments. This, to me at least, represents a form of “magical thinking”, akin to that used by small children and people suffering serious illnesses. Thats why I always prick my ears a bit further whenever I hear the term being used.

As for the argument of waiting for the whole thing to blow over: again, irresponsibility. The problem of accepting that whenever you publish information about a site that could lead to others visiting it, and injuring themselves in the process – you have a moral and ethical (not yet legal, but this can and in most likely probability will change some time in the future) responsibility. It’s the devils prerogative; he can’t push you to commit the crime, but he sure can instill the desire in you to do so yourself. Afterwards, the devil will of course, rid himself of any lingering guilt. After all, it was you who tread those stairs, was it not?

The members of the forum claim, almost in unisom, that they do not need a spokesperson that the media could talk to (I also read that they don’t need help as they already “know” the media, which is not only untrue but shows an apalling lack of judgment. Just because someone is the recipient of media does not make him anything more that just that. A passive recipient. It is a bit like saying that you know how to pilot a plane based on the fact that you fly regularly – as passenger).

Yet again, a mistake and miscalculation. Media has already selected a spokesperson. The only thing that actually mitigates the whole sad, miserable, affair is that the spokesperson is unusually gifted and apt in handling media attention. For the time being it sufficed. Next time – and there most certainly will be a next time (there have already been other cases, but none involving deaths – again, to my knowledge – I have not duly researched this), the UE community might not be so lucky. Already borderline associated with thugs, graffiti-artists and shady activities of less savoury citizens, UE is nothing short of a media-disaster waiting to happen.

The press, being the press, have  jumbled any fringe cultures, subcultures, trends and groupings and made their own interpretation of UE. And a very unfavourable one as thing stand now. Pinning graffiti artists and Urban Explorers in the same group is just not good research – these are almost opposing factions – but in the public eye, they are one and the same.

In the long run, this unwanted and unmitigated attention, coupled with misinterpretations like the one above – might lead to a lobbying for the passing of certain laws (i’m sure you can imagine the nature of those laws), making the blatant displaying of borderline accepted activities a case for the courts, not admiration. Or worse. Any unwanted, unregulated attention calls for greater scrutiny, particularly in our modern society obsessed with the concept of “security”, “fear” and a systematic eradication of “the unknown”. UE as a concept, group or trend, not ready to accept the outcome of its presence in the limelight, and even already crippled by internal disorder amongst members of opposing factions – will suffer the penalty of any quarrelling group: splintering into fractures, each fracture conviced out their right to exist and promote (or not) their own views.

In short, the fall of public UE as they know it.

Lost opportunities

Which is, all in all – rather a shame, really. What makes Swedish UE so interesting (and about the only thing that makes it interesting – our sites are to say the least – not near as impressive as those over in the U.S.A or the European continent even), is its spokesperson: Mr. Jörnmark. He wasn’t the first Urban Explorer to document the decay. He was, however, the first to put them into a real and vivid context. Explaining the process in words (as it happens, by way of his area of expertise, economics) and captivating it in well-taken pictures turned out to be a public success, spawning three volumes of well-recieved books.

For the first time in a long while – modern history came alive in a way that had hitherto not been explored. In succint, wonderfully crafted text Mr. Jörnmark explains the Swedish, and indeed, global history in a captivating and unrelenting fashion.

Apart from being a terrific read, the works of Mr. Jörnmark are followed by a large group of more or less dedicated fans. And so, the phenomena has been outed in a fashion that in hindsight seems unfit considering its main characteristic: being clandestine.

My effort, to show the UE-practictioners of the forum then under pressure, was not aimed at making them more known or forcing them into institutionalisation (that part they’ve managed all too well themselves as I’m sure they are going to realise in the near future) – but was an effort to hide them in plain sight. We do not ask any deeper questions we can easily find the answers to, the modern, popular, mind is simply to… simple for that. This is in particular true of journalists (yes, that was a jibe). It is an unfavourable situation: Exceedingly few members of society have the power to play such sinister havoc with our passion, lives and indeed; secret groupings – as journalists do. Lately, the social media prophets have unsuccessfully tried to claim this crown-and-staff, but as of yet come off as nothing short of loudmouthed clowns. Much to the leering smiles of professional journalists.

The point – was to make sure that UE would attain the status it deserves and once and for all free itself of its murky past. UE can teach us a great deal of things about our recent past that we need to know in order to attain a decent future. Generalising the matter a bit, but only a bit; around the world, the UE culture is nothing more than a uninteresting and unending display of corrosion. Ironically tragic, when speaking of hiding in plain view – the words behind the very visible corrosion, the explanation behind the entropy is almost always much more interesting, crucial even – than most of the substandard Photoshop-damaged, formulaic photography. It almost makes you long for the times when photography and imaging were not a concern for the general public. That however, is a different gripe altogether.

In conclusion, refusing to take responsibility when in public view is both dangerous and naive. When picked up by the media radar you have a choice to play well or to play badly. Not playing is simply not an option. The idea of the format is visibility. And there are simple, almost selfexplanatory rules how to play this game well. Deluding oneself that one can display something, anything, on the public stage and then wash ones hands of any consequence is a failing strategy, and an attitude that the media loves to tear apart. In full view, of course.

The only other, logical, consequence would be to disappear from the public eye once media attention subsides. It will certainly not undo the bad press, but it will not provide such ample opportunities to make mistakes next time something like the aforementioned tragedy occurs (and it will happen, accidents are patient in nature – much more so than their prey). For all intents and purposes, there are those in the UE community that probably wouldn’t mind slipping back under the radar of media society. Perhaps, that would be for the best. That is however not my case to pass any further judgement upon.

And so, instead of taking a step forward and claiming a rightful place – UE has, as a movement, subculture, hobby – or whatever its dubious, capricious, practitioners would like to call it; proved itself naive, uncapable and to be quite honest, rather uninteresting in their ritualistic narcissicm. There is no standing on the stage and not performing to the rules of the house. Not with the media involved. Try as you might, there is no escaping the laws governing the value of visibility – a value much more liquid and volatile than can be spotted at a glance. Especially so by sticking the proverbial head in the sand.

The only trouble with this assumption is that a random shooting of the wolf population does next to nothing to improve the overall genetic health of animals. It does, however, vastly improve the trophy collection of the lucky shooter. Both scientists as well as the general population have agreed on this point: The only realistic way of improving the genetic pool would be to remove flawed cubs and to introduce new individual wolves into the breed. The first is practically undoable (since the only realistic way of finding out if a cub is indeed substandard genetic material is to kill it and do a full autopsy), but in order to sanction the event, the Swedish Hunters association agreed to the second. Something that they’re now backing out of, threatening to kill off the remaning wolves as well.

I won’t go into the public debate or any right or wrongs; because what Guillou so brilliantly describes in his article is the actual heart of the matter:

1. The hunters care nothing for the health of the animals: They covet the trophy alone.
2. In the rethoric employed by the Hunters Association is something infinately worse than any random bloodhunt: The ancient controversy between an everbleeding, dying, rural Sweden and the evergrowing urban population.

For the first point, there is nothing much to be said. Trophies are a fact of hunting. They are however, far less philosophical than they used to be. I will get back to that in a few paragraphs.

And as to the second, the articles in the Hunters Associations periodical, speeches and other public media are statistically biased to the point of outright lies and the rethoric is one seething with anger, humiliation and hate for the urban population of Sweden. The rurals accuse the urbanites of being “ecohuggers” and “idiots”, or even worse, “Stockholmers”, referring to the preposterous idea of living in the nation capital.

The rethoric is understandable, and forgiveable. Rural Sweden has fared exceedingly ill after the economy shifting towards industrialism around the 1950’s, thus leaving a culture based on agriculture, then a few years later moving on to a service economy and in the process almost completely eradicating any basis for economic growth in the rural areas. The best minds, and able hands, left for the cities, or other nations, the factories slowly bled out; what is left are those who would not, or could not adapt – and those violently opposed to the changing times. The conflict of the wolf shooting is not about ecology and it is not about the fate of a few animals, it is the cultural divide between an almost ancient and dying, rural culture – and the urban shift towards an urban one. If one would be that way inclined, it could even be called the rigor mortis of the rural subculture.

What further complicates the conflict is an almost neofeudal, Swedish tax structure. The proceeds and taxes earned in the three major urban areas are redistributed to keep the vast rural areas alive. In essence, levies from wealthy cities pay for investments, healthcare and other municipal expenses in parts of the country unable to sustain themselves. Too few people live rurally and those that do, are statistically at least, further detrimental to the state budget in various, less charming, ways. The system is a yoke put on urbanites and has done little to further the relations of the two groups. For all intents and purposes, this way of governing has furthered the economical divide, seeping into all areas of cohabitation.

Both rural and urban sides struggle with their identities. The ways of one are the camp jokes of another. Urbanites struggle with the reigns of economy in an accelerating pace, demanding an almost pervese attention (Lang’s Metropolis comes to mind); and the rurals struggle with the receeding end of that very same chain. If the past 50 years are indicative of anything I’d say the rurals are at the losing end. Economy isn’t a patient lover at all. The life support of the major cities will continue as long as there is anything to be gained and once even what small progress can be acheived will dwindle, there will no doubt be voices raised, impatiently, proclaiming in so many words, even if they will be more eloquently put: “Fucking die, already”.

A few final words on hunting, and the role of it in any modern society. Hunting, the sport of kings – is in as much ethical turbulence as are the two groups practicing it. The essence of hunting has changed greatly over just a few years. From survival to sport, from sport to… recreation. Because what is blatantly apparent is that hunters of today, care little for ecology or nature. Most of the modern hunters are too absorbed by their rifles than they are in forestry, or ethics. Historically, the best hunters are those that cared for nature and animal alike, understood the delicate balance and when it was their place to intervene – and when to step back. Hunting was as much a scholary activity as it was a necessity. You had to know something about an animal and its life in order to end it. In short, ethics, morality and ecology were in balance.

Today, in order to become a hunter, there are no such requirements. The process is easy and most of the emphasis is on the actual handling of the gun. The Hunter as archetype is dead and what has taken his place is a gleeful individual, much more at home in the NRA (National Rifle Association, the home of gun-toting “freedom-loving”, Americans who just cannot understand the concept of not shooting things) than in the forest. Ecology is biology, ethics and philosophy. These things take time to understand because they affect us in far deeper ways than an instruction in how to clean the muzzle of your rifle. The idea is that by the time you learn the ethics, and the system, you will no longer feel the need to drive out to the woods and kill something and then have a beer over its carcass. I suggest that anyone, absolutely anyone – who feels the need to become a hunter, should be made to undertake a lengthy education into the ecosystem that they’re so eager to pull bounty from. If, by the end of that education, preferrably completed in one of Swedens agricultural universities – that individual has fully understood what it truly means to hunt – then that person should be awarded the rank and license of hunter. I’m betting that we’d see far less hunters in the future than the roughly 270 000 individuals who have a license like this today.

A brilliant starting point for this journey, would be Josè Ortega y Gasset’s “Meditations on hunting”. While pointing out that hunting is in man’s nature, he is often misquoted by the bloodthirsty hunting mob of today as advocating what is a modern hunt. Far from it. What Ortega y gasset in essence writes about is the ethics of hunting and the responsibility of the hunt. This is not to be confused with easy pretexts to go and kill something. Finally – what the author presumably also knew, is that man changes and the premises for what being a man is, also change. Perhaps, we finally need to stop killing for fun.

Now, how about that, rurals?

There is, however, a more troubling and a far more complex issue at hand. The fear that we as a modern civilisation have lost our historical anchor, our historical narrative is affecting us in many, often adverse, ways. If we settle on the fact that the Bible used to be (in the west) our cultural framework, our narrative and that this narrative has over the centuries been supplemented and amended as humanity reached conclusions that were in effect contradictory to it; it can also be concluded that our sum of knowledge is the sum of our findings. Be it from philosophy to history and over to the natural sciences. Every culture needs a book of creation and every culture, be it east or west, has one. Note that it doesn’t need to be an issue of religion, which is essentially a mediator between you and the narrative (and as you reach higher levels of knowledge in history and science, usually a useless one at that). Do not make the mistake of confusing the practice of the narrative with its task, i.e explaining why we’re here in the first place.

In the west, we have demolished our faith in the narrative without ever really replacing it with a sound alternative. Quite simply, we as people are far less sure about who we are and where we came from – then we ever used to be. Couple this with the (often faulty) onslaught of information that the Internet (amongst others) brings us and we are truly at risk of severing all ties to whatever history and science could teach us. For lack of a joint belief or consensus, we create our own stories, our own narrative. Even if the results are nothing short of catastrophic. See, for example, of how media has drained what used to be the symbols of our civilisation of any real meaning. Everything can and will be a joke in AD-land. Satan being used to sell soft drinks? No problem. Newton on a pack of chewing gum? Hey, why not, maybe someone actually heard of the guy?

What has in essence happened is that we no longer live in a culture, we live in an economy. It is evident in the way that we percieve values and transmit them. Just about anything has an economical value and if it hasn’t it is either inconsequential or worse, threatening. Culture is looked upon with much suspicion and what everyone seems to know about it is that it usually “does’nt pay off much”, sneering at its practitioners that at best can hope to perform like dancing bears in the pinnacle of Economys own translation of culture: TV (and, the Net).

When reviving culture – or practising it classically, one is often assaulted with the clever, but essentially faulty argument of: “Why should we listen to dead white males?”, thus putting a gender and class obfuscation on the whole matter. It is a rethoric of the masses and quite alarming as it puts the core of the matter out of focus. Why? Because, class and gender aside (there are ways to explain it, naturally, but that is not the aim of this short text) – we used to have a civilisation built on the best minds that mankind could muster (never mind how these minds were selected!). The fact that these minds are no longer interesting or worse, labeled as “boring” (because a well brought up citizen consumes and wishes to be amused, not taught) has tipped the whole discussion into a sidestreet where those  Judeo-Christian symbols have lost the power to unite.

And thus, each person, each cluster of people, each clan in fact, has to find their own symbols and icons. Sometimes in faux religion, sometimes in pop culture and sometimes in nothing at all. The ball is out there for grabs and it’s up to anyone’s prowess as salesperson to convince the audience as to their particular brand of “truth”.

This, however, is nothing new and we’ve been living with the effects of this ever since Mcluhan first wrote his groundbreaking work. The process has been further described by Postman. The latter also offered a sort of solution for the modern mind.

What IS new, is that the explosion of social media has transferred from being a simple buzz to becoming an accepted form of learning. Social media is educative media in as much as it is a new way of learning: Tribal learning. We trust our tribe to tell us the truth, however vague, unresearched and bland this truth might be. And however cultureless.

This is what happens when you cut a civilisation adrift, far from any narrative that could hold it together or perhaps explain matters more clearly. We, citizens of the Net, find our symbols or make them up from haphazard and superficial result from a search engine. We believe what others say and purchase goods that others believe in. It is a vicious circle that erodes away on the foundation of why and what a little each time we choose to believe (or purchase) something “new”. Economical growth is what defines our existence and the illuminati are those that purchase and consume in the finest of ways.

There is essentially, nothing wrong in consumption. There is essentially nothing wrong with (true) freedom or financial growth for that matter either. It enables us wonderful things. There is however, something terribly wrong with not bothering to understand, on a deep, human level, what it is we are consuming, for what purpose and better still: That we did not come from buying things, we came from a line of ancestors who carried with them the idea of humanity. Not humanity as a function of economy alone, but as a product of history, science, culture AND economy.

I recently visited Rome, Italy. Having high hopes for the Italians as the cradle of European (however bloodthirsty) industry and civilisation both historically and thereafter, I was much disappointed of the state of affairs in old Rome. I recall that after WWII, the Italians, however poor, drew on the fact that they were, historically, a rich country. Culture, again. They knew that they had the works of Raphael in the Sistine chapel and they knew that they were from a country that gave birth to both Da Vinci and Vasari as well as countless other giants of that calibre. It did not matter much that poverty was everywhere because they had a form a dignity that allowed them a slow rebuild without lament.

It turns out however, that culture, has lost its meaning when finally wrung through the mill of television. And what’s even more apalling, Berlusconi-controlled television. Their icons and symbols have been replaced by cheap, mindnumbing propaganda and TV-shows with lightly clad women in place of debate and insight. Geographically, dead centre in that once proud capital, stands a fascist monstrosity called the parliament building. Drawing on the power and repute of old Rome it looks like something Walt Disney would have designed in spiteful caricature of an ancient culture. Berlusconi continues – applauded, and unhindered whatever tradition any fascist ever came up with.

Italy, and the Italians of today struggle with the same societal myopia that pervades much of the west. Once again, cut adrift from a cultural, narrative framework – we’re left with nothing but economy and no means to interpret it properly. Or go beyond the simple transaction of sale and purchase.

And so, it seems that the benefits of an updated, albeit classical education, are once again important. Perhaps more important than ever. In order to consume, citizen, you should really take it upon yourself to answer the question: “Where did you come from?”

In his excellent book, Technopoly, Postman stresses the fact that we cannot view any one single new technology as an isolated event. Meaning you really have to view the media landscape as a sort of ecosystem. You cannot introduce or remove one single organism in an ecosystem without altering the entire structure. The whole ecosystem changes, reboots. This has consequences for all the remaining, or new, inhabitants. This is the way that media, in the sense of acquistion of information, exists. All new formats declare a total war on the established ones. The process of transition often goes unnoticed and unquestioned.

For example; the process of print upheaved the primordial way of learning – by memorizing, group teaching and hands-on instruction. Knowledge became something of a simulation and wisdom (which is a function of experience) took the back seat. After print came television that by its very nature stresses quick observation, emotions and singular effects over logic, reason and slow, individual and often difficult acquisition of knowledge. These last decades has seen an unholy fusion of all of these previous technologies into a midway solution: The computer. The computer however differs in one important respect. It is all these things at once: Individual, emotional, logical, massconceptual, both slow and infinately quick.

Changes in the media landscape can however be quicker than the odd 300 years of evolution described above. Media formats change almost yearly and each new format is indeed a soldier that wages war on the media battlefield; the extinction of one will have far-reaching effects on the others. These changes are perceptible because they happen often while the structural changes in how we learn are not as acutely felt as they creep through decades and centuries.

The printing process, has been remarkably resilient to changes, however. The printed word has been much the same in the last odd century or two although the speed of distribution certainly has accelerated. It is in this respect that the e-book reader is an interesting machine: because it targets that very principle of learning by way of print and infuses it with the accelerated, interrupted, shortcut learning of the computer. Any information, readily available, whenever. Cross-referenced, rated and itemized to a fault. My point is that even if printed knowledge has nothing to do with wisdom – used prudently, with consciousness, it can certainly lay the foundation for it. Wisdom precurses knowledge while knowledge precurses nothing. It simply is. It is an indifferent, amoral tool.

An e-book reader, while claiming to shorten your way to wisdom, runs the very real risk of in fact elongating it considerably. Too brash conclusions and too many shortcuts work against the afterthought needed for acquiring information, sorting through it. Especially in a world where one is constantly assaulted by an amount of information that leaves little room for process or a deeper afterthought. Too much energy is wasted on being everywhere, constantly having to reach decisions and at a lightning pace evaluate situations. Many of our timesaving devices are in fact time vampires.

Technology is a friend that we need to keep under close inspection. It is too good a friend to let fly without asking question. Scepsis is healthy. But more importantly, we need to put our charming, overzealous, technological prophets up against the wall; ask them if they have given any thought not only what inventions do, but also, what they undo – and how this affects us on a deeper level. This is prudent, moral and responsible. Anything else is moronic, selfdestructing blindness. We cannot end up being the tools of our tools. Worse yet, we are at risk of becoming tools who have all but ceased asking questions.

My own reflection on the matter is that even if readingpads might become increasingly popular amongst certain groups, and for specific purposes – the whole idea of making it easy to annotate, reference, cross-reference and look up synonyms and the like – is actually contraproductive to the process of reading. And learning. Because even if the wired dictionary is Websters, say, and not the commonplace breedingground of disinformation, Wikipedia, it depends on the assumption that knowledge is better if speedily acquired. Lets say that you read a word, or a sentence, or a complete paragraph of thought that you don’t understand, or you don’t understand fully. On a readingpad, you simply look it up on your reference of choice and there you go. Presto. Finto. All that thinking has been done for you. You don’t go on reading, carefully paying attention to the material and crossreferencing it with your own knowledge and outlook on the world – and discover that eventually, the text starts to make sense to you. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe its a crap text. But again, you will have discovered that yourself. And anything that comes at a cost in infinately more worth that whatever has been too readily served to you.

Not even mentioning the fact that you don’t develop your own personality or view of the subject you have read, you will have simply scanned the most readily available sources, made a quiet poll in your head (if even that) and selected an opinion to adopt. Someone elses opinion. Now, I’m fully aware that analysis, critique and conscious thought require the sort of investment in time and level of attention that few folk have the audacity to go through. Nevertheless, here you go. If you recieve too many quick, given answers, your own tools for analysis and thought will suffer. Because adopting opinions has absolutely nothing to do with acquiring knowledge (sorry those of you too heavily invested in Social media, chances are you’re buying into the collective rumour scam).

Why are books so excellent? Because they exist on several planes: They can be given to a friend. You can spill coffee on them. You can lose them. You can sort them and stack them. But, most importantly, books, in the two dimensional form – do not give you the opportunity to cheat. You either understand it or you don’t. If you don’t, then you have the choice of furthering yourself into the material, forming questions (beginning to sound like science to you here?) and trying to understand. Or, you can give up. Decide that it wasn’t for you. And that choice, too, says something about you.

Many of our online, interactive and social inventions are fabulous, but they carry that same stink of lazy, moronic and careless acquisition of knowledge. We need time to reflect and form opinions. A human being needs that offline time to put words into perspectives. If all is given, then there truly is nothing to discover. But all is never given, it is just simply misrepresented. What you see in the dictionary is a mere summary of terms, what you read in Wikipedia is just a perfunctory glance (or just plain wrong – if you’re lucky, it won’t be a malign wrong). So, take advantage of all that wealth of information but do not succumb to the lazy process of adopting opinions. And most people do. Bloggers certainly do. Nothing spreads disinformation like bloggers (usually clad in lofty statements of “consumer power”). That, however is an entirely different matter.

The mental process of sorting knowledge takes time. By robbing readers of that time, we’re simply turning them into drones. Nothing more.

It can, of course, be argued that a readpad offers the same time for reflection as a book would (and that argument can be extented to the whole internet as a learning tool). But then again, why use one to begin with? Is portability really that important? How often do you read all of your books at once? Do you really want to use more screens for reading? Do you really want to talk to support staff when it doesn’t boot up? Isn’t it kind of cool not to have to use batteries to read?

I’m not saying that readpads don’t have their audiences or uses. They certainly do. The question is however if they improve on the actual content. My answer is no. This is the genius of the book. The format is uniquely adapted to the process of thinking. Don’t google it. Think it.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Terre des Hommes (1939).

Crowdsourcing, or crowding, is the popular term for creating things together, usually with the net as hub. The process is mediated by the vast amount of collaborate, sociodynamically instituted tools available to the general public. Of late, we’re being led to believe that this process is the panaceum for all of those pesky creative ills we’ve all been waiting for.

And arguably, it really does have its uses. In the related world of open source software, for instance. Or fundraisning. Or any activitity with an altrustic motive or where distribution is concerned, it can perform wonders. I say open source software, because it is evident that the construction of software by means of working together and licensing the work to the general public has both yielded results that push the evolution forward where economy and intellectual property rights are concerned. Put simply, open source software works as a business model.

Another key aspect of the open source culture is the example of an independent project that finds completion of the missing pieces via the OS-framework; without necessarily sharing the entire contents of the whole thing. OS-communities are extremely useful for finding specialists that are willing to work towards a common goal, if set up in a way to flatter their resumé. Or need of pride of creation (for the participants and project owners alike). This relief from the restraint of deadlines, budgets or other organisational pitfalls are a bounty that exceeds any doubt towards of waiving the intellectual rights to the community. Thus follows that any sharing done with the community is done not out of an altruistic motive but rather out of an ego-driven need to accomplish a personal goal (whether that goal is to preserve the culture of the open source movement or simply tap the community for solutions makes no matter – it is still an egodriven process!).

The omenous signs begin collecting like dark clouds only when the open source process permutates into other fields than those of software engineering. It is a dangerous derivative because while the process of creating something collectively can at its best be wonderful in terms of project management, distribution and leadership, its downright abhorrent on a personal level. Thoughts belong to people on an individual level and function only inasmuch as one person can transmit this to another. The thought that sparks the action is the result of an individual process (even if it usually influenced by others). The process of transmission in a social collaborative has not only set aside but rather replaced the actual process of thinking.

The term open source is native to anyone below thirty. It is the natural, digital ecosystem of a public used to sharing playlists, random gossip (a petty process called “blogging”), participating in online scrapbooks (no names) or even more criminally vulgar matters of manipulating the scientific truth to suit personal needs and or tastes on Wikipedia. The open sourced crowd, paradoxically striving for an individual expression, loses any actual individuality when they hand over the concept of propriety to the general public. In short and in sharp contrary to popular belief, there is nothing personal in being public. The vast digital landscape becomes an endless real estate to be shared, repainted, remixed, re-told and re-sold – but never colonised. The cynic in me  is sure that Marx is laughing his pox-ridden ass off somewhere in a remote corner of Dantes Hell; because within all this seemingly gracious and utterly democratic landscape lies the ruin to any real creation. Even if the speed of distribution and sharing of ideas and thoughts has increased, these thoughts and processes still stem from one mind at a time. And the more selective and thorough this mind is, the better will the result be.

There is nothing wrong in asking for input (via any means, social or not) – but as we’ve seen online, there is seldom anything good to be said for letting strangers create it, haphazardly. The amount of work needed to control the crowd into creating anything useful might as well be put into the actual creation of it. The lack of decent content to match the outstanding technology of today is downright daunting. And it is that way because creating something truly individual is hard – but painting over a fleeting thought, publishing it online, adding photos to it and letting others comment it – is not: A bucket of crap, emptied in public will remain a bucket of crap, regardless of how many times it is re-shared, or remixed.

There is no escaping the fact that somewhere, at some point – some one will have to do some serious thinking.

(thanks to K.P)

The effect is that  cut adrift from richer, intercultural and deeper interpretations crowds will like anything, listen to anything and in fact do anything. Art, in turn, is banalised by either catering to the critic (and thus, public) mind by construcing sub-par work on the pre-approved themes of Gender, Race and Class – or, in puerile denial of fact will tend to gravitate towards easy answers such as chock value, aeasthetics of transfer, or worse.

The critics, and the hive mind of the media (much fuelled by… well, the so called online social revolution) undermine the aesthetic value of art, killing the first impressions of the audience by superimposing petty political interpretations on it. In turn, this turns art into a meaningless, heritage-free babble (remember the renaissance? no? neither do the artists…). This is true in much of the current output of theatre, film, music, drama, literature. Cut adrift from a native structure, art becomes an orphan. A sitting duck waiting for orders. This is a much more useful tool than say, censorship. The latter at least is honest in its intents. Political correctness for its own sake is a clandestine tactic aiming at a far worse outcome – namely, self-censorship.

Piecemeal, art critics, commentators and modern intellectuals are deconstructing our carefully and painstakingly collected cultural heritage, paving the road forward with unreason. I shiver whenever I hear our old masters reinterpreted through this modern narrow prism. A renaissance painting becomes racist (or serves other purposes, depending on the agenda. It might be pro-sexual, for instance), a 18th-century play is turned into a social class commentary and in just about on every occasion, the fairer sex is for some reason of course violated.

What is not said is that some of art is open to interpretation. Sure. Some of it, however – is not. You need to know your culture and you need to know your background. This is your passport to the world of critique. In order to have an opinion you need a solid foundation of knowledge. Personal taste should be a function of knowledge, not the other way around!

By viewing art, and culture, through a narrow, politically set agenda – you are led to believe that taste, just pure taste, is enough. And certainly. When you’ve arrived at all the wrong conclusions to begin with, it doesn’t really matter what you think. Therefore you are allowed to say it. Encouraged, in fact. I’m sure that future artists will have a online commentary of their works, hardwired to the very clay they sometimes work in.

Good art is seldom self-referential. The same is true for critique. Good art is seldom “relative”. The term of relativity is fairly new in both art and conceptual theory. You need to know at least this before making any lofty claims of interpretation. Any pompous form of obfuscation then filtered through the modern trinity of Gender-Race-Class is a dead giveaway that you are witnessing a hoax.

Furthermore, note the way critics and media are imposing the superiority of emotions over intelligence and reason. How one feels is advocated over how one reasons. Once the audience is firmly set in this belief, they will swallow just about anything, because should one critisise anything there is always emotion to fall back on. X is valid because Y feels that it is valid. Looking back on two thousand years of cultural theory just 50 or 60 years ago, a statement like that would be laughable. Today, it is the given truth.

Feelings are important as guides towards reason, not the sole tool of it. Sometimes, feelings are the end result of reason, yet, still not the sole tool of the process of forming an opinion. Western civilisation is on a slipperly slope of intellectual incompetence; perhaps, for geopolitical reasons if no others,  just when we need it the most. Obscurity gets away with nonsense, and the public holds it for truth.

A feature of the modern critic (by now you understand that “critic” means just about any politician, media profile, etc) is the shameless and selfabsorbed reference to science. Making claims that sound researched, or are only superficially researched is often given in abscence of proper evidence (amuse yourself by counting references such as, “the study said”, “in the poll”, etc). Long established rules of what counts for scientifically valid  results become the function of any PR-firm memo or would-be critic online commentary – all the while having nothing at all to do with any real findings, or properly researched issues.

Finally, these mechanics of unreasonable thought enable would-be neo-dandy art critics (no names, this is not the evening press) to dish out hollow, superficial advice to artists and their curators – and get away with it. A crime, if there ever was one. And  far more serious than meets the audience at a passing glance. What goes on in art, is only a sideshow to the heavy damage sustained to western culture.

We need to be level-headed and careful in our judgments – and not give in to feelings as sole means of interpretation.

Below is the quote and the particular question from the interview in its context:

“Do you consider the “listener” when you’re making your records?  I mean, do you care about what they’ll take from your work, if they’ll like it? Or, to misquote Oscar Wilde, is any opinion better than having no opinion?

To create a work of any kind is an act of communication therefore the aim is to lend the material as much clarity as is possible without compromising it in anyway. You work in service of the composition. It makes demands and you do your best to adequately respond. Of course one cares what listeners take away from the experience but what you can’t do is anticipate a specific audience’s response to it or have one in mind whilst creating it. The strength of a piece comes from its internal logic, that it’s true to itself. That the piece might speak to a very small number of people isn’t its concern. The main consideration is that the essence of the work is uncompromised and communicated to the best of your abilities.

As to whether people like it or not, I’d prefer to think that with a work like manafon, they’re possibly having an audio experience unlike one they might’ve had before. There’s no intention to repeat an experience someone might’ve had, say, with Brilliant trees. We’re saddled with our past for better or worse but each individual release should rise or fall on its own merits.

I’ve always had to deal with the fact that, whatever I produce, I will upset or alienate a proportion of my audience, occasionally to the point of losing them altogether. Some might complain the work is too ‘out there’ while others complain that the work isn’t experimental enough, that I’m merely repeating myself. Consequently, over the years I’ve lost some listeners and gained others.

I guess I’m one of those infuriatingly ‘inconsistent’ artists who don’t tailor the work to any specific market therefore there will always be dissenters regardless of what I produce. Having said that I am incredibly grateful to those who’ve stuck with me, given me the benefit of the doubt, and taken pains to understand the reasons and the possible benefits for the, sometimes radical, changes in my output.”

Yes. Its true. If you have any sort of integrity and goal in life, independent choices you make will by their very nature alienate some people and befriend others. The more difficult choice you make the more likely you are to alienate, rather than befriend. The question is whether or not this will happen, or if its right for it to happen – it will, anyway. In any decent sort of life, it will. The question is where, exactly, does one draw the line – and I’m not speaking of art, but rather of life. Art is an independent agent. Life is not. So if we wish to live with integrity, and create room for our individuality – where do we draw the line against alienation not as a part of growth, but as a stereotypical biproduct of evolving?